In an intriguing revelation, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has taken a firm stand against the legal theories of textualism and originalism. Breyer, renowned for his pragmatic approach, highlights his concerns in his forthcoming book titled “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism“.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution positions the constitution and federal law as the ‘supreme law of the land.’ Even so, the application and interpretation of these laws frequently differ due to varying legal perspectives. Two such theories, textualism and originalism, often embraced by conservative judges, have been integral in legal interpretation debates.
Textualism suggests that interpretation of law should principally be based on the exact diction used in the law, while originalism asserts that interpretation should be rooted in the understanding and intent of those who drafted and ratified the constitution.
Breyer’s criticism emphasizes that adopting such theories will not bring forth the sought-after stability to the law. The former justice and pragmatist argues that these theories obscure the constitutional necessity to adapt laws to evolving societal situations and norms. His stance provides a refreshing look at constitutional interpretation, urging for a more adaptive and flexible perspective rather than rigid adherence to legal text or historical context.
This discourse, from one of the country’s leading legal minds, inevitably deepens the continuing conversation on the interpretation and application of the constitution and federal law. Breyer’s book, scheduled to be released shortly, is expected to unveil more detailed arguments on this pivotal topic.